-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Bill
> Quackenbush
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: Roger B. Marks; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Regarding Bob's Question ... RE: [802SEC]
> [TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION] to APPROVE FCC FILINGS
>
>
>
> All,
>
> So how about some simple facts.
>
> What was the vote (approve/disapprove/abstain) in each WG on the
> motion(s) to approve the two position statements?
Bill,
According to the tallies I recorded, these are the votes from .11
and .15:
18-02-002 (Opposition to Pet Recon)
.11 APP 69 OPP 0 ABS 22
.15 APP 17 OPP 3 ABS 6
18-02-005 (Comments on NPRM)
.11 APP 55 OPP 0 ABS 6
.15 APP 13 OPP 3 ABS 13
Roger reported that .16 approved both documents by
unanimous voice vote.
Motions passed in all cases with >75% according to
these tallies.
> What was the numbers of voting members on the roster of
> voting members for each WG at the time of the above vote(s)?
> (hint - the answer is NOT the number of voting members present
> at the meeting at which the motions were passed).
Frankly, I don't know ... I did not request a quorum
call in either .11 or .15 before presenting the motions,
relying on the fact that the meetings were proceeding
and votes were taking place on other matters.
Bob Heile has told me that .15 had a quorum ...
you've presumably seen Roger's response ...
I have been unable thusfar to reach Stuart (who
may have taken some vacation after Sydney?)
However, again, I would like to stress that WG
approval is actually *IRRELEVANT* and you can either
accept the votes as "guidance" or ignore them completely
and base your judgement on your own review of the
documents in question.
THE ***IMPORTANT*** THING IS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS
***MUST*** BE FILED WITH THE FCC NO LATER THAN TOMORROW,
FRI, MAY 31 ... and it is ALSO important to note that THAT
deadline is the result of our request for an extension
of time so that we COULD file ... to not file now would
be VERY poor form ("Why did you ask for an extension if
you weren't going to file anyway?").
The bottom line is that these documents are NECESSARY
responses to serious threats to the spectrum that the
802 wireless standards rely on, and it is OUR responsibility
to our membership to respond appropriately to help defend that
spectrum.
In other words, I believe that this issue is so clear
that nobody on the SEC should need the WGs to tell them
that "This is the right thing to do in terms of representing
the membership and defending 802 standards."
There is really not a WG quorum issue here, since
the SEC is capable of, and should, make an affirmative
decision on this matter, so let's not get caught up in
that issue, please.
Again, I urge you an the remaining members of the SEC
to PROMPTLY vote APPROVE on the motion to file these
documents with the FCC.
If anyone who hasn't voted yet has questions, PLEASE
feel free to call me at my home office, 610-965-8799,
or on my cellphone, 610-570-6168.
Regards,
Carl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBPPYwkwK2hSca9giwEQJCeQCeNQov6CxTiFDjd0HzfmbEtPWYPm4AoJ3R
d6H1kdEfHKHbo1dhgP+dgl1+
=M6Ik
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----